7
   

Porn - degrading to women? or"the all you can eat salad bar"

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 07:23 pm
I was trawling through a number of university websites at work - (looking up what is included in social work education, if you must know) - when I found this amongst the course materials. (I only looked at it for the photos!).

I thought it was an interesting summary of a particular view ...(The article itself is longer, and is here:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Information/06870info/A%20Feminist%20Overview%20of%20Pornography.htm )

Might lead to an interesting discussion, I thought. Or a bun-fight.

Anyway - here it is.


Critique of Anti-Porn Feminism
The specific accusations hurled at pornography include

1. Pornography degrades women;
2. Pornography leads directly to violence against women.
3. Pornography is violence against women, in that:
a. women are physically coerced into pornography;
b. women involved in the production of pornography are so psychologically damaged by patriarchy that they are incapable of giving informed or 'real' consent;

Do these accusations stand up under examination?

1. Pornography is Degrading to Women.

'Degrading' is a subjective term. I find commercials in which women become orgasmic over soapsuds to be tremendously degrading. The bottom line is that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself.

The assumed degradation is often linked to the 'objectification' of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don't have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as 'sexual beings' makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term 'sex objects' means showing women as 'body parts', reducing them to physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as 'brains' or as 'spiritual beings'. If I concentrated on a woman's sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?

2. Pornography Leads to Violence against Women.

A cause-and-effect relationship is drawn between men viewing pornography and men attacking women, especially in the form of rape. But studies and experts disagree as to whether any relationship exists between pornography and violence, between images and behavior. Even the pro-censorship Meese Commission Report admitted that the data connecting pornography to violence was unreliable.

Other studies, such as the one prepared by feminist Thelma McCormick (1983) for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women, find no pattern to connect porn and sex crimes. Incredibly, the Task Force suppressed the study and reassigned the project to a pro-censorship male, who returned the 'correct' results. His study was published.

What of real world feedback? In Japan, where pornography depicting graphic and brutal violence is widely available, rape is much lower per capita than in the United States, where violence in porn is severely restricted.

3. Pornography is Violence

a. Women are coerced into pornography.

Not one woman of the dozens of woman in porn with whom I spoke reported being coerced. Not one knew of a woman who had been. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss reports of violence: every industry has its abuses. And anyone who uses force or threats to make a woman perform should be charged with kidnapping, assault, and/or rape. Any pictures or film should be confiscated and burned, because no one has the right to benefit from the proceeds of a crime.

b. Women who Pose for Porn are so Traumatized by Patriarchy They Cannot Give Real Consent.

Although women in pornography appear to be willing, anti-porn feminists know that no psychologically healthy woman would agree to the degradation of pornography. Therefore, if agreement seems to be present, it is because the women have 'fallen in love with their own oppression' and must be rescued from themselves.

A common emotional theme in the porn actresses I have interviewed is a love of exhibitionism. Yet if such a woman declares her enjoyment in flaunting her body, anti-porn feminists claim she is not merely a unique human being who reacts from a different background or personality. She is psychologically damaged and no longer responsible for her actions. In essence, this is a denial of a woman's right to choose anything outside the narrow corridor of choices offered by political/sexual correctness. The right to choose hinges on the right to make a 'wrong' choice, just as freedom of religion entails the right to be an atheist. After all, no one will prevent a woman from doing what they think she should do.

A Pro-Sex Defense of Pornography
As a 'pro-sex' feminist, I contend: Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically. It benefits them personally in several ways:

1. It provides sexual information on at least three levels:

a. it gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation, which seems to come less naturally to women than to men. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give themselves pleasure.

b. it allows women to 'safely' experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment. Pornography allows women to experiment in the privacy of their own bedrooms, on a television set that can be turned off whenever she has had enough.

c. it provides a different form of information than textbooks or discussion. It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would 'feel' to do something.

2. Pornography strips away the emotional confusion that so often surrounds real world sex. Pornography allows women to enjoy scenes and situations that would be anathema to them in real life. Take, for example, one of the most common fantasies reported by women -- the fantasy of 'being taken', of being raped.The first thing to understand is that a rape fantasy does not represent a desire for the real thing. It is a fantasy. The woman is in control of the smallest detail of every act.

Why would a healthy woman daydream about being raped?

There are dozens of reasons. Perhaps by losing control, she also sheds all sense of responsibility for and guilt over sex. Perhaps it is the exact opposite of the polite, gentle sex she has now. Perhaps it is flattering to imagine a particular man being so overwhelmed by her that he must have her. Perhaps she is curious. Perhaps she has some masochistic feelings that are vented through the fantasy. Is it better to bottle them up?

3. Pornography breaks cultural and political stereotypes, so that each woman can interpret sex for herself. Anti-feminists tell women to be ashamed of their appetites and urges. Pornography tells them to accept and enjoy them. Pornography provides reassurance and eliminates shame. It says to women 'you are not alone in your fantasies and deepest darkest desires. Right there, on the screen are others who feel the same urges and are so confident that they flaunt them.'

4. Pornography can be good therapy. Pornography provides a sexual outlet for those who -- for whatever reason -- have no sexual partner. Perhaps they are away from home, recently widowed, isolated because of infirmity. Perhaps they simply choose to be alone. Sometimes, masturbation and vicarious sex are the only alternatives to celibacy. Couples also use pornography to enhance their relationship. Sometimes they do so on their own, watching videos and exploring their reactions together. Sometimes, the couples go to a sex therapist who advises them to use pornography as a way of opening up communication on sex. By sharing pornography, the couples are able to experience variety in their sex lives without having to commit adultery.

Pornography benefits women politically in many ways, including the following:

1. Historically, pornography and feminism have been fellow travelers and natural allies. Both have risen and flourished during the same periods of sexual freedom; both have been attacked by the same political forces, usually conservatives. Laws directed against pornography or obscenity, such as the Comstock Law in the late 1880's, have always been used to hinder women's rights, such as birth control. Although it is not possible to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they both demand the same social conditions -- namely, sexual freedom.

2. Pornography is free speech applied to the sexual realm. Freedom of speech is the ally of those who seek change: it is the enemy of those who seek to maintain control. Pornography, along with all other forms of sexual heresy, such as homosexuality, should have the same legal protection as political heresy. This protection is especially important to women, whose sexuality has been controlled by censorship through the centuries.

3. Viewing pornography may well have a cathartic effect on men who have violent urges toward women. If this is true, restricting pornography removes a protective barrier between women and abuse.

4. Legitimizing pornography would protect women sex work- ers, who are stigmatized by our society. Anti-pornography femi- nists are actually undermining the safety of sex workers when they treat them as 'indoctrinated women'. Dr. Leonore Tiefer, a professor of psychology observed in her essay "On Censorship and Women":

"These women have appealed to feminists for support, not rejection...Sex industry workers, like all women, are striving for economic survival and a decent life, and if feminism means anything it means sisterhood and solidarity with these women."

The law cannot eliminate pornography, any more than it has been able to stamp out prostitution. But making pornography illegal will further alienate and endanger women sex workers.

The Purpose of Law
The porn debate is underscored by two fundamentally antago- nistic views of the purpose of law in society.

The first view, to which pro-sex feminists subscribe, is that law should protect choice. 'A woman's body, a woman's right' applies to every peaceful activity a woman chooses to engage in. The law should come into play only when a woman initiates force or has force initiated against her. The second view, to which both conservatives and anti-porn feminists subscribe, is that law should protect virtue. Law should enforce proper behavior. It should come into play whenever there has been a breach of public morality, or a breach of 'women's class interests.'

This is old whine in new battles. The issue at stake in pornography debate is nothing less than the age-old conflict between individual freedom and social control.



.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 15,029 • Replies: 220
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 07:29 pm
Here is another article from the same site - with an interesting analysis of the process of discussion (about porn, in this case), itself.

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Information/06870info/Debating%20Pornography.htm
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 07:35 pm
D, first link didn't work
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 07:42 pm
I'm going to read the second link and think about this...a great thread
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 07:47 pm
Damn - thanks Panzade - I will fix it when I return from work.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:07 pm
Panzade, did you know you're being handed out with happy meals at McDonald's?

As for this, a quick reading leaves me skeptical (the "coerced" one especially... define "coerced"). I am sympathetic to the concept that anti-porn feminists don't have a great case, but this strikes me as simplistic and revisionist, too.

I'll be bavk...
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:13 pm
Puppy meat at McDonalds?..heard of kangaroo meat...
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:13 pm
paste the link into your browswer and delete the bracket on the end...it'll work then.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:21 pm
hmmmmm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:41 pm
I have deleted this post because i don't intend to be used for the "sponsored links" of this or any other site.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:48 pm
<really really pleased that my rant didn't post earlier>
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:50 pm
I'm a pro-sex feminist, who prays that she never ever has to work with a Canajun-trained social worker again. If you're not a Marxist-Leninist-feminist-freak, they consider you the enemy. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:12 pm
Jer wrote:
paste the link into your browswer and delete the bracket on the end...it'll work then.


Damned bracket is gone.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:16 pm
I'm likin' the pro-sex Wendy. She'd never get a job as a social worker here, but I like her.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:28 pm
Any more incisive analysis on that one to come, Beth?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:39 pm
Quote:
Other studies, such as the one prepared by feminist Thelma McCormick (1983) for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women, find no pattern to connect porn and sex crimes. Incredibly, the Task Force suppressed the study and reassigned the project to a pro-censorship male, who returned the 'correct' results. His study was published.


This is still the status quo here. 21 years later, the social workers union is even more powerful than it was in 1983.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:50 pm
Scary dudes up your way, beth...
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 10:22 pm
This thesis is a mind blower. It certainly challenged all of my assumptions.
0 Replies
 
galton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 10:48 pm
One bit of evidence against the claim that porn causes rape is that while access to porn has exploded since 1970, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows an overall decrease in rape during that period.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 10:54 pm
FYI, Depending on which country the McDonalds is located, they have their specialty meals. They serve dogburger in China.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Porn - degrading to women? or"the all you can eat salad bar"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 07:22:31